The Rest of the Story...

[Glow]

Four indicted FLDS men post bond, are released
By Brooke Adams
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 08/07/2008 08:54:38 AM MDT


Posted: 8:51 AM- Four men from a polygamous sect posted bond and were released from a county jail late Wednesday, nine days after they surrendered to Texas authorities on sexual assault charges.

The men, members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, turned themselves in July 28, and were detained in the Schleicher County Jail in Eldorado. A grand jury indicted the men -- Raymond Jessop, Michael Emack, Allen Keate and Merril Leroy Jessop -- on the charges, related to marriages with underage girls, on July 22; Leroy Jessop also faces a bigamy charge.

They were being held on $100,000 cash bonds on each count. An FLDS spokesman confirmed the men were released late Wednesday. A fifth man, Lloyd Hammon Barlow, was released last week after he posted bond on three
failure to report child abuse misdemeanor charges.


http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_10126769

And the state is so worried about the threat they pose to children that the only restriction placed on the men is that they cannot leave the state.

 

[Glow]

FLDS custody hearings moved up a month By Ben Winslow
Deseret News
Published: Friday, Aug. 8, 2008 12:18 p.m. MDT

Court hearings in Texas on whethe r to place eight children taken in the raid on the Fundamentalist LDS Church's YFZ Ranch in foster care are now slated to begin later this month.

Clerks in a San Angelo court said Friday the hearings were rescheduled for Aug. 18, and could last the entire week. They were previously scheduled for Sept. 25.

"We will present evidence that we believe will justify the non-emergency removal of the children and the attorneys and parents will be represented and can plead their case to the court," said Texas Child Protective Services spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner. "The judge ultimately decides if CPS gets temporary custody again."

CPS filed court papers earlier this week seeking to place the six girls and two boys, ages 5 to 17, in foster care, claiming their mothers refused to limit the children's contact with men involved in underage marriages. Included in their evidence were documents detailing child bride marriages, including a pair of 12-year-old girls sealed to FLDS leader Warren Jeffs.

An FLDS spokesman has said that CPS still hasn't proven the eight children are in any immediate danger.

Hundreds of children from the FLDS Church's YFZ Ranch were removed in an April raid when child welfare workers and law enforcement responded to the polygamous sect's compound on a report of a pregnant 16-year-old girl in an abusive marriage to an older man. The call is believed to be a hoax, but authorities said they found other signs of abuse.

Approximately 440 children were returned to their parents after two Texas courts ruled the state acted improperly. CPS recently dropped 32 cases involving children in the nation's biggest child custody case.

Child welfare and criminal investigations continue, including a grand jury that indicted six FLDS men on charges ranging from sexual assault and bigamy to failure to report child abuse. The grand jury is scheduled to meet again on Aug. 21, at the same time these custody hearings are expected to be under way.

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700249294,00.html


Now why would Texas do this? Why fast track this case? Is it because of the publicity? To give the FLDS lawyers less time to prepare? To coincide with the Grand Jury reconvening?

 

[Glow]

Polygyny - the practice of having more than one female partner at the same time, either wife or sexual partner depending on context.

Polygamy - the practice of having more than one spouse, esp. wife, at one time.



The Practical Polygyny of John Edwards?

John Edwards? Polygynist? (Update, affair portion now confirmed, paternity, not yet.) Or Jesse Jackson for that matter. In the latter case the Reverend Jackson's "extra marital" tryst has been proven, the only differences between the FLDS and the Reverend Jackson's practice is that the FLDS call their functionally similar relationships (similar to the point of being identical), marriages and the FLDS largely stick with their extra brides as opposed to discarding them and essentially making out of them. It would seem that former Senator John Edwards is doing the same as the Reverend Jackson. I haven't said much about it because this is one of those stories that could well blow up in your face if you assert it's "proven" that Edwards had this affair and "love child." The chances of that are diminishing every day.

So in Edwards case do we make a "Safety Plan" and move in and have him sign it and his mistress sign it? No, because in their case they will acknowledge they are wrong and society will forgive them. As long as it's done in the dark in ways that destroy lives as opposed to build lives, we will forgive them. When it's done brazenly, in the sense that when asked, the FLDS would acknowledge a marriage relationship, we hunt them down and destroy them. With as much of this sort of thing coming out about our leaders, both religious and political, you could probably place reporters full time on every US Senator or Representative and find a good deal of them behaving like the FLDS do. Only when caught, they will deny it. When shown the proof, they will repent, but God forbid they do what's right and stick with the women they have dalliances with, as opposed to leave them and their children.

http://hughmcbryde.blogspot.com/2008/08/practical-polygyny-of-john-edwards.html

 

[Glow]

Isn't it interesting how interwoven polygamy, underaged marriage and religion are?


Nigerian Mohammed Bello Abubakar, 84, has advised other men not to follow his example and marry 86 women.

The former teacher and Muslim preacher, who lives in Niger State with his wives and at least 170 children, says he is able to cope only with the help of God.

"A man with 10 wives would collapse and die, but my own power is given by Allah. That is why I have been able to control 86 of them," he told the BBC.
He says his wives have sought him out because of his reputation as a healer.
"I don't go looking for them, they come to me. I will consider the fact that God has asked me to do it and I will just marry them."

But such claims have alienated the Islamic authorities in Nigeria, who have branded his family a cult. Most Muslim scholars agree that a man is allowed to have four wives, as long as he can treat them equally.

But Mr Bello Abubakar says there is no punishment stated in the Koran for having more than four wives. "To my understanding the Koran does not place a limit and it is up to what your own power, your own endowment and ability allows," he says.

"God did not say what the punishment should be for a man who has more than four wives, but he was specific about the punishment for fornication and adultery."

'Order from God'

As Mr Bello Abubakar emerged from his compound to speak to the BBC, his wives and children broke out into a praise song.

Most of his wives are less than a quarter of his age - and many are younger than some of his own children.

The wives the BBC spoke to say they met Mr Bello Abubakar when they went to him to seek help for various illnesses, which they say he cured. "As soon as I met him the headache was gone," says Sharifat Bello Abubakar, who was 25 at the time and Mr Bello Abubakar 74.

"God told me it was time to be his wife. Praise be to God I am his wife now."
Ganiat Mohammed Bello has been married to the man everyone calls "Baba" for 20 years. When she was in secondary school her mother took her for a consultation with Mr Bello Abubakar and he proposed afterwards. "I said I couldn't marry an older man, but he said it was directly an order from God," she says.

She married another man but they divorced and she returned to Mr Bello Abubakar. "I am now the happiest woman on earth. When you marry a man with 86 wives you know he knows how to look after them," she said.

No work

Mr Bello Abubakar and his wives do not work and he has no visible means of supporting such a large family. He refuses to say how he makes enough money to pay for the huge cost of feeding and clothing so many people.
Every mealtime they cook three 12kg bags of rice which all adds up to $915 (£457) every day.

"It's all from God," he says. Other residents of Bida, the village where he lives in the northern Nigerian state, say they do not know how he supports the family. According to one of his wives, Mr Bello Abubakar sometimes asks his children to go and beg for 200 naira ($1.69, £0.87), which if they all did so would bring in about $290 (£149).

Most of his wives live in a squalid, unfinished house in Bida; others live in his house in Lagos, Nigeria's commercial capital. He refuses to allow any of his family or other devotees to take medicine and says he does not believe that malaria exists. "As you sit here if you have any illness I can see it and just remove it," he says.

But not everyone can be cured and one of his wives, Hafsat Bello Mohammed, says two of her children have died. "They were sick and we told God and God said their time has come." She says that most of the wives see Mr Bello Abubakar as next in line from the Prophet Muhammad.

Indeed, he claims the Prophet Muhammad speaks to him personally and gives detailed descriptions of his experiences. It is a serious claim for a Muslim to make.

"This is heresy, he is a heretic," says Ustaz Abubakar Siddique, an imam of Abuja's Central Mosque.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7547148.stm



Just fascinating that the biggest concern is his "heresy"

 

[Glow]

One thing that has become strikingly evident in following this case is the ability of the media to shape and manipulate our thoughts.

That is unfortunate since we rely heavily on them for the facts. With newspapers having to compete with the Internet the ability to sell papers is a fierce battle.

I heard it said once if you wanted to write a great menu for a restaurant, that it isn't as important to sell the steak as it is to sell the sizzle. It appears that is true with the journalistic mind set behind this paper also.

As one example, the San Angelo paper has been heavily biased on the CPS side of things in this case. For a while back in April they even shut down their comments section because there were too many comments against their CPS inspired rhetoric.

One of the most blatantly ridiculous things they did was to keep using language that made the situation sound more inflammatory then the facts actually were.

For example, "pregnant teen" is not all that exclamatory in and of itself since that is epidemic in our own society. But put under age in front of it and watch those papers sell! The funny thing is except for 18 and 19 year olds ALL teens are under aged! But no matter - hey it works! Still not satisfied with that, CPS tried to bolster their sagging case by substituting the word "child" for the word "teen"

Just to jack up the "sizzle," headlines about adults having sex with children sold even better than just simply saying "under aged" And on and on it went.

But just out of curiosity, if you remove CPS and their press handouts and take away the obvious bias of the paper itself. What do they report then?

Check out the article below and notice what word is used innocently enough to describe the 17 yr old.


Four escape apartment fire
By Jennifer Rios (Contact)
Originally published 01:45 p.m., August 7, 2008

Dan Keen and his son Leroy were on their way home from lunch Thursday when they saw the smoke.

When San Angelo firefighters arrived shortly afterward, the gas and electricity for the building had been safely cut off and a 17-year-old woman and the three nieces and nephews she was baby-sitting were in the parking lot, said Battalion Chief Royce Owen.


http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/aug/07/four-escape-apartment-fire/


So whats it going to be GoSanAngelo? Is a 17 yr old a "child" or a woman? And if she is a "child" why was she alone with three other children? I sure hope someone called CPS!

If your decision is that she is a "woman" then by all standards of fairness that makes each and every FLDS girl who is 17 or older women too. So which is it?

 

[Glow]

Texas bigamy: Through the Looking Glass

by Doran Williams

Evidence suggests that the Texas legislature enacted its bigamy statute, Texas Penal Code Section 25.01, in a special session held inside Alice in Wonderland’s Looking Glass.
To the untrained eye, it may seem that the statute is clear and concise. In fact, as illustrated by this initial survey, it is quite the opposite. It is a monument to the illogical absurdity that results when a state attempts to achieve an unconstitutional end - the eradication of a religion - through an otherwise constitutional tool like statute.
For this post, I’ve rearranged the statute** a bit - inserting my own A through D — to facilitate discussion. At this point, I don’t address marriages to non-adults and I assume that none of the women in these examples is married to any person other than the cad I will be using as an example of a bigamous dummy.
Section 25.01 says in part:
“An individual commits an offense if…he is legally married and he…(A) purports to marry or does marry a person other than his spouse in this state, or any other state or foreign country, (B) under circumstances that would, but for the actor’s prior marriage, constitute a marriage…or…(C) lives with a person other than his spouse in this state under the appearance of being married….(D) For purposes of this section, “under the appearance of being married” means holding out that the parties are married with cohabitation and an intent to be married by either party.”
Being married is the linchpin under (A) above. Obviously, by the plain language of the statute, an unmarried man can have as many women bear him children as can tolerate him, he can live with them communally or visit them at their homes, and he does not commit bigamy for so long as he does not “hold out” [see (D)] that he is married to any of them. That means he does not refer to them as his wives, nor they to him as their husband. It means none of them can have an intent that they be married in the present sense, not at some future time.
Being married is also the linchpin under (C). Here, the man is, let us assume, legally, formally married pursuant to license. He lives with another woman, IN TEXAS, and holds out, by the actions described in the first example above, that she is his wife. Dummy. He commits bigamy is he does that. If he does not do the holding out, he can live with as many other women and have children by them till he drops dead, and he does not commit bigamy. Notice also, that he could be married and live with his wife in the Texas section of Texarkana, and live in the Arkansas section of that city with another woman under the appearance of being married, and not be in violation of the Texas bigamy statute.
The language in (B) will produce loads of litigation, billable hours for attorneys, persecution, and reams of judicial opinions. What are the “circumstances that would, but for the [scoundrel's/cad's/sex fiend's] prior marriage, constitute a marriage”? Here are two that come easily to mind: He gets married to a second wife pursuant to a marriage license that is fraudulently or illegally obtained; or, he enters into a second, informal marriage and/or registers a declaration of informal marriage with the County Clerk pursuant to the Texas Family Code.
How about going through a marriage ceremony with someone not yet 16 years old (post Sept. 05)? Nope, that kind of marriage is void.
How about going through a marriage ceremony with an adult, conducted by a person “…who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony…” but without a marriage license?
There is at least one civil case opinion out of the 3rd Court of Appeals in which the Court said that the statutes which regulate the mode of entering into a marriage relationship, including the requirement of a license, are merely directory. That is to say, even without a license, the marriage is valid anyway, unless it is declared void by some other statute. Thus, in the hypothetical I set out above the second marriage would be valid except for the existence of the first, and the dummy has committed bigamy. On the other hand, according to the language of the Court in that case, he would not commit bigamy if he attempted to marry someone under the age of 16, because such marriages are void.
What if the officer of the religious organization has not been authorized by that organization to conduct a marriage ceremony? No help to the dummy, as the Family code says the validity of the marriage is not affected by lack of authority.
What if the religious organization means something by the word “marriage” and by the “marriage ceremony” that is not contemplated by the Family Code and the Penal Code? This is the really difficult question. It will probably be THE difficult issue in some of the bigamy prosecutions, if any, of FLDS people. A decent answer to this question will require a trial court and attorneys to create an exhaustive record of just what “marriage” means historically and in contemporary Texas. It will also require the same kind of record to be made concerning a defendant’s understanding of the words, and his religious organization’s understanding of the words.
If “marriage” does not mean to the religious organization and its members the kind of immediate joining together physically, as well as spiritually and emotionally, for the purpose of creating a family, in the way the words and ceremony seem to mean to most main-stream American religions, then maybe bigamy is not present.
What if the religious organization never uses the terms “marriage,” “spouse,” “husband,” and “wife”? Here’s a hypothetical to test that question:
Imagine parties to a ceremony as just a “Joining Together” and to each other as “Pumpkins,” not as “spouses” or “husband and wife.” They don’t “purport to be married,” - whatever this means — and they don’t hold themselves out to be husband and wife, or spouses. Rather, they hold themselves out to be Joined Pumpkins. And they don’t intend to start making babies immediately or even to set up housekeeping together. They may have in mind doing these things later on, but not right now.
The statutes, after all, speak in terms of marrying, and of spouses. If Pumpkin people do not use the language of the Code, because the Code does not contemplate or address the consequences of the Joining Ceremony, or even indicate any understanding of the Joining Ceremony, then to find a Pumpkin Person guilty of bigamy may imply a violation of due process of law.
Prosecution of the Pumpkin people could be extremely difficult if they use certain words to mean something the State of Texas does not mean by those words. Indeed, Texas prosecutors may have to cite Humpty Dumpty:
“When I use a word, it means just what I chose it to mean - neither more nor less.”
The issue will be made difficult in part because the State has not defined in detail the word “marriage,” much less “purporting” to be married. That is not surprising, since “marriage” undoubtedly means so many different things to so many Texans that a detailed definition cannot be formulated.
But the difficulty of all such cases is that they are so fact dependent: Some may be easier to decipher than others. I suspect that very soon the prosecution of the FLDS people for bigamy will get to be so legally technical that a lot of people will not understand what is going on.
Those who want to keep up with what really is happening — not just with the garbled reports of pundits - will need to pay close attention as Texas courts and prosecutors plunge headlong through the looking glass in pursuit of Pumpkins. Why they do it is anyone’s guess.
Kurt Schulzke contributed to this post.
* * *
* Adapted from Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll.
** Full text of the bigamy statute appears below.
Tex. Penal Code § 25.01 (2007)
§ 25.01. Bigamy
(a) An individual commits an offense if:
(1) he is legally married and he:
(A) purports to marry or does marry a person other than his spouse in this state, or any other state or foreign country, under circumstances that would, but for the actor’s prior marriage, constitute a marriage; or
(B) lives with a person other than his spouse in this state under the appearance of being married; or
(2) he knows that a married person other than his spouse is married and he:
(A) purports to marry or does marry that person in this state, or any other state or foreign country, under circumstances that would, but for the person’s prior marriage, constitute a marriage; or
(B) lives with that person in this state under the appearance of being married.
(b) For purposes of this section, “under the appearance of being married” means holding out that the parties are married with cohabitation and an intent to be married by either party.
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(1) that the actor reasonably believed at the time of the commission of the offense that the actor and the person whom the actor married or purported to marry or with whom the actor lived under the appearance of being married were legally eligible to be married because the actor’s prior marriage was void or had been dissolved by death, divorce, or annulment. For purposes of this subsection, an actor’s belief is reasonable if the belief is substantiated by a certified copy of a death certificate or other signed document issued by a court.
(d) For the purposes of this section, the lawful wife or husband of the actor may testify both for or against the actor concerning proof of the original marriage.
(e) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree, except that if at the time of the commission of the offense, the person whom the actor marries or purports to marry or with whom the actor lives under the appearance of being married is:
(1) 16 years of age or older, the offense is a felony of the second degree; or
(2) younger than 16 years of age, the offense is a felony of the first degree.


http://iperceive.net/texas-bigamy-through-the-looking-glass/#more-776

 

[Glow]

A couple of weeks ago it was reported that military helicopters did a "fly over" above the FLDS ranch even though that is not the customary flight path. The were reported as dropping down to tree top level - a manuever called "buzzing" which causes a reaction in the sense that it whips the tree branches around, kicks up dirt and frightens any livestock that might be there.

The story was quickly squelched in the media.

AFTER BEING PULLED FROM THEIR HOUSES AT GUNPOINT BY SWAT TEAMS, SNIPERS AND A TANK, THE CHILDREN WERE FREED FROM CAPTIVITY, AND THOSE NOT COMPLETELY TERRORIZED, RETURNED TO THE RANCH TO TRY TO TURN THEIR LIVES BACK TO SOME SEMBLANCE OF “NORMAL”.

OUT FOR A JOYRIDE, 3 HELICOPTERS IN FORMATION CAME TREE TOP LEVEL ACROSS THE CHILDRENS HOMES AND GARDENS WHERE THEY WHERE PICKING VEGETABLES AND SCATTERED THE CHILDREN WHO RAN IN TERROR FEARING ANOTHER ATTACK WAS UPON THEM.

LIKE THEIR CPS, AND JUDICIAL COUNTERPARTS, TERRORIZING CHILDREN IS FUNNY TO SOME IN EL DORAYDO AND SAN ANGELO, BUT MOST NORMAL PEOPLE DON’T SEE THE HUMOR.

http://www.flds.ws/2008/08/10/nothing-better-to-do-than-scare-children/#comments

 

[Glow]

Hey! Its a lazy summer day.

Here is a story for you to read


The Rabbit People Who Caused All the Trouble
by Kurt Schulzke

A lady from San Angelo calls me once in a while, offering leads on stories. She refers to the FLDS — in a loving kind of way — as “the rabbit people” and to Judge Walther — in a not-so-loving way as “the Barbie Doll Judge.” Reading stories tonight to the kids, I ran across this one by James Thurber. Given how some West Texans want to pin just about everything on the FLDS, I found it apropos.

The Rabbits Who Caused All the Trouble
by James Thurber

Within the memory of the youngest child there was a family of rabbits who lived near a pack of wolves. The wolves announced that they did not like the way the rabbits were living. (The wolves were crazy about the way they themselves were living, because it was the only way to live.) One night several wolves were killed in an earthquake and this was blamed on the rabbits, for it is well known that rabbits pound on the ground with their hind legs and cause earthquakes. On another night one of the other wolves was killed by a bolt of lightning and this was also blamed on the rabbits, for it is well known that lettuce-eaters cause lightning. The wolves threatened to civilize the rabbits if they didn’t behave, and the rabbits decided to run away to a desert island. But the other animals, who lived at a great distance, shamed them saying, “You must stay where you are and be brave. This is no world for escapists. If the wolves attack you, we will come to your aid in all probability.” So the rabbits continued to live near the wolves and one day there was a terrible flood which drowned a great many wolves. This was blamed on the rabbits, for it is well known that carrot-nibblers with long ears cause floods. The wolves descended on the rabbits, for their own good, and imprisoned them in a dark cave, for their own protection.

When nothing was heard about the rabbits for some weeks, the other animals demanded to know what happened to them. The wolves replied that the rabbits had been eaten and since they had been eaten the affair was a purely internal matter. But the other animals warned that they might possibly unite against the wolves unless some reason was given for the destruction of the rabbits. So the wolves gave them one. “They were trying to escape,” said the wolves, “and, as you know this is no world for escapists.”

Moral: Run, don’t walk, to the nearest desert island.

http://iperceive.net/the-rabbit-people-who-caused-all-the-trouble/#more-735

 

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

Case #2925 THIS IS THE STATES WEAKEST CASE

THE CHILDREN
Virginia Kloe Barlow will be 14 in Sept
Lynda Luella 5

Alice Faye 36 (mother)
Lloyd Barlow 39 father



Lloyd Barlow married a 16 year old named Sylvia in 2001. Due to this and the fact that he doesn't report under aged births he is deemed an unfit parent. If his wife will not state that she refuses him access to his children - then she is unfit also.

It is of note that the 16 year old was 'married' in 2001- before one of the children mentioned here was even born. It was also just ten days before her 17th birthday, and it occurred either in Texas, where that was not legally an under-aged relationship at the time, or it occurred in another state which makes it not the concern of the State of Texas. So which is it?

This one also contains some of the rantings and ravings of Warren Jeff's about his "visions" that actually have nothing to do with the children involved. I can only assume they are tossed in to show what a whack job the religious leader is in an attempt to use such flimsy reasons to take away this 14 year old and the 5 year old.

http://web.gosanangelo.com/pdf/2925-motion-8-5-08.pdf

I don't believe this is a weak case. Dr. Barlow was married to an underage girl and delivered babies of other underage girls without reporting abuse. He is supporting the ongoing cycle of underage marriage and births and thus can be deemed a danger to his own children. Just like any other case, a wife that refuses to protect the children is also held accountable and the children should be removed from the home.

 

[Glow]

I don't believe this is a weak case. Dr. Barlow was married to an underage girl

Hi Rainbow~

Yes he did. That was in 2001, 10 days before the girl turned 17. At that time what he did was legal down to age 14, as determined by the State of Texas. If they are going to prosecute him then they need to prosecute any other men who married 16 yr old girls in 2001 also.

Iand delivered babies of other underage girls without reporting abuse..

That is pretty much standard procedure. Go to any hospital anywhere and you will find Dr.s delivering babies of underage mothers all over the place. They do not report it nor is is the failure to report it prosecuted. There isnt even a requirement to fill in a fathers name on the birth certificate.

IHe is supporting the ongoing cycle of underage marriage and births.

The FLDS came ourt with a public statement in May (?) that they would no longer condone or practice this. So where is the proof that he as an individual intended to?

Iand thus can be deemed a danger to his own children. Just like any other case, a wife that refuses to protect the children is also held accountable and the children should be removed from the home.

What is it exactly that she is supposed to protect the children from and how is she refusing?

 

[Glow]

Furious with the FLDS.


I'm done coddling the FLDS. Instead of opening fronts against those who choose to attack them, the FLDS lie down and embolden them instead. For a while the facts worked on the side of the FLDS and Texas was in disarray and cowering. Now, after watching the FLDS be content with the tiny crumbs that have been doled out, Texas attacks again.

The Deseret News;

"Texas Rangers are investigating 20 cases of sexual assault and about 50 bigamy charges involving members of the FLDS Church, the Deseret News has learned.

Texas officials on Monday confirmed the number of open cases but would not say how many suspects were involved."



No one familiar with the facts of this case believe there are 50 "bigamous" FLDS men, as is evidenced by Rod Parker's "surprised" statement.


"Rod Parker, a Salt Lake attorney acting as spokesman for the Fundamentalist LDS Church, was surprised by the sheer number of sexual assault and bigamy cases."

And he insists there aren't enough men practicing plural marriage at the Yearning For Zion ranch outside Eldorado, Texas, to come up with 50 bigamy investigations.

"'I think they would have a problem coming up with 50 bigamy charges without charging the women,' Parker said."


Well, dummy, maybe you'd better wise up. THAT is what they're going to do. Smell the coffee.


"Even so, Parker believes Texas authorities will have a rough go at convicting a bigamy charge."


They're playing PERCENTAGES genius, they're also going back to the original playbook of impressing the press and impressing those who believe what they read in the press. If you charge 50 people with bigamy, it has to be true, right? Right?

You also silence the new cautious potential friends of the FLDS by scaring them into believing they defend those who are indefensible. You also tie up the resources of the FLDS by putting men and women in jail. You threaten to remove even more children by the predicted sequence of events THAT I GAVE YOU FORTY SEVEN DAYS ago.

First, terminate the parental rights of the father. That isolates the mother as the only parent. Second, attack the mother's freedom with a criminal charge of some sort. Third, the parentless child is now a perfect target for state legal custody. Badda Bing, Badda Boom. Texas has what it came for. The genocidal destruction of the FLDS and their children. It just took longer.

The FLDS are not going to win this war by waiting for Texas to start being nice to them, they're not going to win this war with one battle. While they wait, Texas opens the war up again on several fronts and drains their attention and resources. In this intervening time between regaining custody of their kids and now, the FLDS should have opened lawsuits all over the west against as many respondents as possible and sued the living daylights out of all of them to tie them up, get their money (if possible) and get evidence into the record and discover evidence. They haven't done that. Now they pay.

http://hughmcbryde.blogspot.com/2008/08/furious-with-flds.html
I've hinted at it before and now I'm going to say it. They're going to lose my support. Not because I think they have suddenly gone from just to unjust or their cause from right to wrong, but because I cannot play the role of Dudley Do-Right to their perpetual and willing Nell Fenwick. If they're going to tie themselves to the railroad tracks and keep walking past Snidely Whiplash, I can't help. No one else can either. If it is their destiny in their minds to be Holy Martyrs, well then, they can have it. Fight or Die. It's been clearly laid out. It makes no difference to me at this point. If the FLDS Fight, then I will be there with them. If they choose to die, I will not.

 

[Glow]

An interesting note,

This is the case of the High school where under aged girls supposedly made A "pregnancy pact"
The students admitted it to the school nurse, who took it to the town authorities, who quickly (with the aid of the horrified parents squelched it.)

As in every case where a real story is "cleaned up" for public consumption, some person with a real voice is going to have to lose their job. That is the only way the sanitized lie can be made to look like a "truth"

No one will investigate this - even though at least one of these under aged teens was made pregnant by an older man ( a homeless man she targeted in desperation to get pregnant) OMG!

She will NOT be removed from her parents home. CPS will NOT even attempt to take her child.

No. That will be reserved for a small case in Texas. For people who dress funny and act weird and make us feel anxious.

'Pregnancy Pact' Principal Quits
AP posted: 9 HOURS 19 MINUTES AGOcomments: 386filed under: National NewsPrintShareText SizeAAAGLOUCESTER, Mass. (Aug. 13) --

A high school principal who set off a furor after being quoted as saying that teenage girls formed a pact to get pregnant has resigned, weeks after his comments were publicly questioned by the mayor.
Time magazine reported in June that Joseph Sullivan said a pact made by a group of teens to get pregnant and raise their babies together was at least partly behind a spike in pregnancies at Gloucester High School. Seventeen girls at the school became pregnant this year -- four times the usual number.

http://news.aol.com/article/pregnan...s/130959?icid=200100125x1207397282x1200379223

Ignoring the fact that this news story has exactly the same facts as what the FLDS are being accused of - we wont pay attention to this case at all.

 

[Glow]

Thursday, August 14, 2008
FLDS

Mostly it's the bureaucratic game of wait, and then wait to wait, and then wait a little bit more. Bureaucrats do not care- it's a job and they can retire and move to Florida while your life remains in limbo.


A spokeswoman for the Department of Public Safety said at one time authorities were pursuing 50 bigamy investigations and 20 sexual abuse cases involving the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the San Antonio Express-News reported Wednesday.

However, department spokeswoman Tela Mange declined to reveal what stage the investigation is at.

http://politicom.moldova.org/stiri/eng/142149/

Willie Jessop says this is primarily an effort to direct attention away from CPS' incredibly power grab of 450 children without making a single effort to show they were each abused and needed to be removed from their homes. Instead, CPS based this removal on their ability to predict the future.

I am sure they do welcome any distractions from their behaviour in April, but the basis for this announcement seems to have been a response to journalists discovering those numbers in an internal departmental memo and asking about it.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10183979?source=rss

While Texas authorities were initially investigating 20 cases of sexual assault and 50 bigamy cases involving FLDS members, it is unclear how many of those cases remain open four months later.

Texas Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Tela Mange confirmed the number of cases - outlined in an April e-mail - was accurate in the month officials raided the Yearning for Zion Ranch near Eldorado.
But she said she can't confirm the current number of cases still being investigated.

Rod Parker says he believes those numbers have to have changed drastically, and that the only way they could have found fifty people at the ranch to charge with bigamy is by charging the wives as well as the men, a highly unusual move. So far, after two long Grand Jury hearings, the state has come up with only four indictments for under-aged marriage involving men at the ranch. The GJ will be meeting again on August 21.

http://www.heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/

 

[Glow]

Since lady justice has ripped off her blindfold (at least in Texas) the better to see what religion you are before she decides how guilty you are - I felt compelled to bring up a few statistics that Texas is ignoring - in their hellbent determination to justify that farce of a raid back in April.

About that crystal ball CPS believed they possessed, whereby they 'knew' that all the children were at risk, the boys because in thirty to fifty years they might be marrying under-aged girls, and the baby girls because in 12-16 years they might be teen brides- Should CPS use that crystal ball for other cases?

The high rates of abuse associated with mom's boyfriend have been documented- the whys for this are not known, but it is much more common:


Nonetheless, many scholars and social workers who monitor America's families see the abusive-boyfriend syndrome as part of a broader, worrisome trend. They note an ever-increasing share of America's children grow up in homes without both biological parents, and say the risk of child abuse is markedly higher in the nontraditional family structures.

"This is the dark underbelly of cohabitation," said Brad Wilcox, a University of Virginia sociologist. "Cohabitation has become quite common, and most people think, 'What's the harm?' The harm is we're increasing a pattern of relationships that's not good for children."

Children living in households with unrelated adults are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as children living with two biological parents, according to a study of Missouri data published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2005.

Children living in stepfamilies or with single parents are at higher risk of physical or sexual assault than children living with two biological or adoptive parents, according to several studies co-authored by David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center.


http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2007/nov/18/mothers-boyfriend-too-often-an-abuser/


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The rate of child abuse in single parent households is 27.3 children per 1,000, which is nearly twice the rate of child abuse in two parent households (15.5 children per 1,000).


An analysis of child abuse cases in a nationally representative sample of 42 counties found that children from single parent families are more likely to be victims of physical and sexual abuse than children who live with both biological parents. Compared to their peers living with both parents, children in single parent homes had:
- 77 percent greater risk of being physically abused
- 87 percent greater risk of being harmed by physical neglect
- 165 percent greater risk of experiencing notable physical neglect
- 74 percent greater risk of suffering from emotional neglect
- 80 percent greater risk of suffering serious injury as a result of abuse
- 120 percent greater risk of experiencing some type of maltreatment overall.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/foundation/foundatione.cfm
and
http://www.heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/

 

[Glow]

I should add that there are certainly excellent, loving step-parents out there- it's not a given that they will be abusive. But the rates remain higher for some reason, some studies indicate astronomically higher. Would it be reasonable for CPS to take away all the children in single parent homes on the grounds that a high proportion of them are very likely to be abused? Or maybe they should simply automatically be detailed to peek through the closets and drawers of any home where one or more adult in the home is not related to the children- just to be on the 'safe' side? Or should they wait for some evidence about that specific family first?


What they did in the YfZ case was take those sorts of short cuts- remove all the children first because they believed everything they heard from former FLDS members who had nothing but bad things to say about the FLDS (they didn't look for any who had good things to say, and they don't get book contracts), and because they thought they could look into the future and see that every one of those people was going to remain in the FLDS, every child was going to be involved in under-aged marriages (even though every adult member of the FLDS was not a participant in an under-aged marriage), and the only way to fix this was to sever the bonds the children had with their parents, their siblings, and their community. Finding 20 cases of under-aged marriage now will nto retroactively justify what CPS did. Finding 50 cases of bigamy will be irrelevant.

But if CPS does not have a housecleaning, if the citizens of Texas do not make it clear to their legislators that this action on the part of CPS is unacceptable and indicative of something deeply flawed within the system, then I do not think it is too far fetched that one day CPS will use statistical likelihoods like those mentioned above as justification to rummage through the underwear drawers and private lives of other citizens without any other 'probable cause' more significant than statistics- and we've all seen how bad CPS is with math.

http://www.heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/

 

[Glow]

This article is not about the Texas FLDS but about Allen Steed. He is the young man that at the age of 19 married his 14 yr old bride under the direction of Warren Jeffs.

Two odd things about this particular case.

First, it is rare that something severe enough to get a life sentence is "let go" 8 years without a trial.

Second, the "accomplice" - in this case Warren Jeffs- is sentenced for being an accomplice to a deed for which their has been no trial for the actual perpetrator.

I personally think Warren Jeffs has deluded mental capacity and needs to be held out of mainstream society. That said, I do find the "order" in which things have happened in this case most unusual.


here is the article -

The ex-husband of a teen bride who helped convict polygamous church leader Warren Jeffs on counts of rape by accomplice — could face trial.
Allen Glade Steed is charged in Utah with one count of first-degree felony rape for his sexual relationship with Elissa Wall after the couple married in a 2001 religious ceremony.
She was 14 and he was 19, and both were members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Steed attorney Jim Bradshaw says plea negotiations recently ended with no agreement.
A hearing is October 22nd to determine if prosecutors have enough evidence for a trial.
If convicted, Steed could spend the rest of his life in prison.
He didn’t immediately comment.
Jeffs has also been indicted in Texas on sexual assault charges for an alleged relationship with an underage bride in 2006.
The Associated Press does not generally identify people who say they were sexually assaulted, but Wall has spoken publicly and published a nationally distributed book, “Stolen Innocence.”

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=4863899&page=1

 

[Glow]

after reading more about this case, I have a question for the mentally agile

In Utah a 14 year old can consent to sexual activity with a 19 year old.

However they can't get married without a judge.

So applying that to the case in the post above,

that would mean that the ceremony was rape, but the sex wasn't?

 

[Glow]

Hugh McBryde on his blog, gives commentary on the article from the Houston Chronicle.


here is the actual article.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5946990.html


here is his take on it -


Saturday, August 16, 2008
34 FLDS Children off the hotseat.
I love the way the headline reads too. There's no bias at the Houston Chronicle;





"Court lets CPS end oversight of 34 FLDS children."




Oh yeah. We were forced to do it, and finally, the courts have let us end our oversight. What kind of loon writes a headline like that? It's similar to all the screaming headlines about Levi Barlow Jeffs who was up on a misdemeanor beef who "plea bargained" to guilty. For a misdemeanor. To read the headlines you would have thought initatially that FLDS men were starting to "fess up" to sexual crimes. The stories made sure of course, that you knew there was a "girl" in the car with him. Levi by the way is all of 19. His crime was a failure to STOP when asked to. It's a TRAFFIC TICKET PEOPLE. But I digress.




"Friday's court action doesn't mean CPS ends its involvement with the 10 families of the 34 children, all members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a group that allegedly practices underage marriage.


"CPS may still investigate the families or deliver services."



"Deliver Services?" Did we fall straight through the 1984 Newspeak trapdoor to "Wonderland" with no fanfare at all? I get it that any entity or person will try to color or spin their phrasing to their benefit, but haven't journalists learned that they can paraphrase? There is no "service" the FLDS want from CPS or frankly need either. What next? Do we hear that the executioner was allowed to "end oversight" of a prisoner after he "delivered services?" CPS is never going to go away. They're going to hang around the doors of these people until every child in the house is 18.


"Last week, armed with new evidence, the agency returned to court to again seek custody, but this time only of eight children, six girls and two boys ages 5 to 17. The agency said it was doing so either because they lived in households that refused to condemn underage marriages or were actively involved in the practice.

(Judge Barbara) Walthers will hold hearings on that request beginning Monday in San Angelo."



I have freedom of speech in this country, and freedom of religion but if I express the view that what was once entirely legal in this country (as Willie Jessop also pointed out as recently as 100 or so years ago) and say it's a good idea, my children can be taken from me. Thank God they are grown because I have expressed just those ideas at home and apparently though I am free to express those ideas the children do not belong to me. They belong to the state. The state doesn't want their children to hear that kind of stuff.

Wake up. The dangerous agenda of CPS is still being pushed. They can go anywhere, anytime and if they determine you merely advocate beliefs they do not agree with, they can take your children. Anytime. In Canada churches have already been attacked by the government for merely preaching the unvarnished view the Bible expresses that homosexuality is wrong. The Bible is a book filled with "hate speech" by the standards of our liberal bureaucracy. Soon, merely refusing to condemn those attitutes expressed by God's law will be an abusive environment.


"CPS is still deciding what to do with the 400 or so pending cases."


Well we know now. They will either seek custody of the children or be let to terminate oversight, but still "deliver services." If CPS can have it's way, they'll NEVER go away and they will always threaten to take the children, and may actually do so.

http://hughmcbryde.blogspot.com/2008/08/34-flds-children-off-hotseat.html

 

[Glow]

Ms. Swinton, alleged perpetrator of the hoax phone calls that sparked the raid into YfZ Ranch, may be subpoenaed in an FLDS court challenge to the boxes of materials law enforcement collected while they were there:


A judge here has set an Oct. 1 hearing on a challenge to the law-enforcement search of the Fundamentalist LDS Church's YFZ Ranch.

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700251690,00.html

Among those who could be witnesses at the contentious hearing: the woman who allegedly made hoax calls that sparked the raid on the polygamous sect's property in west Texas. Rozita Swinton's name appears on a list of potential witnesses subpoenaed for either testimony or documents, according to court records obtained by the Deseret News.

Lawyers for the FLDS Church and one of its leaders, Lyle Jeffs, filed the subpoena request in court in late April. Their list of possible witnesses include workers at San Angelo's New-Bridge Family Shelter, Texas Rangers involved in the initial investigation into the phone call that sparked the raid, FLDS members at the YFZ Ranch, Swinton and documents pertaining to a series of cell phone numbers linked to her.


Unfortunately, they have to appear before the same judge who issued those search warrants in the first place, and who approved the removal of all the children, and who held the incredibly biased and unreasonable 14 day hearing where all 450 children were treated as a single household, and she approved the removal of children without who were not even listed with the Court.

Once they got onto the ranch, of course, all the children were removed because CPS claimed to have seen other signs of child abuse. We now know that this was not true. In the first weeks, those 'signs' they talked about centered exclusively on pregnant minors. The only two pregnant women they were able to show turned out to be 18 and 22 years old, and the correct documentation of both womens' proper ages was part of the 'evidence' submitted to the court at the 14 day hearings. Since being forced by two higher courts to return the children, CPS has been pretty quiet about exactly what this evidence they 'saw' might be.

CPS is seeking to regain custody of 8 more children today (including a 17 year old male), on the basis that their mother have failed to keep them away from men who have allegedly engaged in under-aged marriages. None of the men have been convicted of a crime. One of those men is not charged with a crime in connection with his allegedly underaged marriage, which CPS dishonestly implies was illegal, when in fact, it was several years ago in a state and time when 16 year olds were of age to consent legally.

August 28th is another Court Date to watch:


Swinton is charged in Colorado Springs with making a hoax call to police that prompted a massive search there in February for an abused 13-year-old chained in a basement. When Swinton was arrested, Texas Rangers were there. Arrest warrant affidavits suggest that phone numbers linked to her are the same that "Sarah" used to make her calls for help.

Swinton is scheduled to be in a Colorado court Aug. 28 for a hearing on her case, where she may take a plea deal on a misdemeanor charge of making a false report.


The Grand Jury also meets again on Thursday.

If you read the entire article, notice again the time lapse Judge Walthers permits before she responds to FLDS requests, and how immediately she responds to CPS suits.


http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/2008/08/flds-august-18.html

 

[Glow]

Excellent use of barbed wit to make a point that is indeed factual.


Skip to content
Home Our Mission Adopt A Family Contact Us Happy FLDS Children FLDSDRESS.COM Voice for the Children Petition

CPS APPROVED PARENTING SKILLS

IN AN EFFORT TO BETTER INSTRUCT THE PARENTS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS IN RAISING THEIR CHILDREN PROPERLY, HERE ARE THE ACTUAL EVENTS THAT WERE SANCTIONED AND APPROVED BY CPS DURING THE KIDNAPPING OF THE MORMON CHILDREN APRIL 3, 2008 THROUGH AUGUST 5, 2008


It is perfectly OK to use physical force against your child using guns, tanks, snipers, swat teams, helicopters and profane and abusive language to get the children to follow instructions if it is in their best interest.

It is OK to emotionally and psychologically terrorize them but it must be done in their best interest by trained abusers.

When a child is resistant to agree with your point of view, you may interogate them for hours, depriving them of food, sleep, or comfort.

Indoor plumbing is unnesseary for the children of Texas, as long as there is an outhouse available and you watch them to make sure they do not go swimming.

Never use the same toilet if you have a Mormon child, we all know they all have sexually transmitted diseases due to their promiscuous lifestyle.

Air conditioning, heating and lighting is not necessary to raise a child, so long as you have a flashlight available to shine in their face.

Children who are diabetics DO NOT need insulin, even if it is prescribed by a physician. This is a ploy for sympathy, and not medically necessary.

If a child breaks his bones in the parents custody, it is called “Child Abuse”, possibly even a “Pattern” of child abuse. If a child suffers a broken bone or two while in CPS care, it is called an “Accident”.

Breastfeeding babies will suffer no problems if abruptly weaned from their caretakers. Besides, everybody knows that breastfeeding a child is actually an adult experiencing and indulging in her sexual fantasies.

Toddlers will suffer no ill effect if removed from their family involvement, in fact, we can provide the child with much quicker, faster and more effective abuse that any parent could anyway.

There are no legal impediments to removing a child from his or her home, just find some really incompetant Attorney Ad Litems and a Judge who hates Mormons more than you do.

If a Doctor requests a Mother’s presence in the hospital for your child, ignore him, he’s over reacting and is probably a Mormon lover anyway.

If you are busy and leave your child strapped into a stroller for 24 hours and they become dehydrated enough to be sent to the hospital in San Angelo,become a CPS worker very quickly and no criminal charges will be filed against you.

If your child has been raised modestly all his or her life, strip the little brat naked in a stall and you can then effect maximum humiliation.

If your child becomes a victim of child abuse, or you think they have, announce it to the world, preferably on National TV.

Should any of your new parenting skills we have taught you cause your child any emotional, physical or psychological harm, do not worry, you now have a “Special Needs child” on your hands and the Federal Government will pay you even MORE money if you chose to sell him or her.

If you see your next door neighbor with a child you would like to own, make a hoax phone call and the deed will be be done faster than you can say “Yee Haa!”

If you follow our instructions carefully, this can be your expected result, and as you can see, these children are thrilled with the new parenting skills our paid volunteers are using on them.

http://www.flds.ws/2008/08/16/cps-approved-parenting-skills-by-natalie/